Jesus Garcia vs.

The Honorable Ray Alan Drilon

FACTS:

Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (private respondent) filed, for herself and in behalf of her minor
children, a verified petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City for the
issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Jesus
C. Garcia (petitioner), pursuant to R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of physical
abuse; emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result of marital infidelity
on the part of petitioner, with threats of deprivation of custody of her children and of
financial support.

Things turned for the worse when petitioner took up an affair with a bank manager of
Robinson's Bank, Bacolod City, who is the godmother of one of their sons. Petitioner
admitted to the affair when private respondent confronted him about it in 2004.

Petitioner's infidelity spawned a series of fights that left private respondent physically
and emotionally wounded. All the emotional and psychological turmoil drove private
respondent to the brink of despair. On December 17, 2005, while at home, she
attempted suicide by cutting her wrist. She was found by her son bleeding on the floor.

Finding reasonable ground to believe that an imminent danger of violence against the
private respondent and her children exists or is about to recur, the RTC issued a TPO on
March 24, 2006 effective for thirty (30) days|| the trial court extended the aforequoted
TPO for another ten (10) days, and gave petitioner a period of five (5) days within which
to show cause why the TPO should not be renewed, extended, or modified.

ISSUE:

1.) WON R.A. 9262 is unconstitutinal for being violative of due process and the equal
protection clauses?

2.) WON there is undue delegation of Judicial power to the Barangay officials?

HELD:

1.)
R.A. 9262 does not violate the the guaranty of equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated
should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.||| R.A.
9262 is based on a valid classification as such, did not violate the equal protection
clause by favoring women over men as victims of violence and abuse to whom the State
extends its protection. The unequal power relationship between women and men; the
fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread
gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the
classification under the law.

According to the Philippine Commission on Women (the National Machinery for Gender
Equality and Women's Empowerment),violence against women (VAW) is deemed to be
closely linked with the unequal power relationship between women and
men otherwise known as "gender-based violence".The enactment of R.A. 9262 aims to
address the discrimination brought about by biases and prejudices against women.|||
The classification is germane to the purpose of the law, which is to address
violence committed against women and children. Moreover, the application of R.A.
9262 is not limited to the existing conditions when it was promulgated, but to future
conditions as well, for as long as the safety and security of women and their children are
threatened by violence and abuse. R.A. 9262 applies equally to all women and children
who suffer violence and abuse.

There is nothing in the definition of VAWC that is vague and ambiguous that will confuse
petitioner in his defense. ||| They are worded with sufficient definiteness that persons of
ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited, and need not guess at
its meaning nor differ in its application.|||

There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A. 9262 singles out the husband or
father as the culprit. As defined above, VAWC may likewise be committed "against a
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship." Clearly, the
use of the gender-neutral word "person" who has or had a sexual or dating relationship
with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships. Moreover, while the law
provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former
marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of
the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

R.A. 9262 is not violative of the due process clause of the Constitution

Petitioner bewails the disregard of R.A. 9262, specifically in the issuance of POs, of all
protections afforded by the due process clause of the Constitution. A protection order is
an order issued to prevent further acts of violence against women and their children,
their family or household members, and to grant other necessary reliefs.)

The grant of a TPO ex parte cannot, therefore, be challenged as violative of the right to
due process. Just like a writ of preliminary attachment which is issued without notice and
hearing because the time in which the hearing will take could be enough to enable the
defendant to abscond or dispose of his property, in the same way, the victim of VAWC
may already have suffered harrowing experiences in the hands of her tormentor, and
possibly even death, if notice and hearing were required before such acts could be
prevented. It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of
procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests,
among which is protection of women and children from violence and threats to their
personal safety and security.|||

It should be pointed out that when the TPO is issued ex parte, the court shall likewise
order that notice be immediately given to the respondent directing him to file an
opposition within five (5) days from service. Moreover, the court shall order that notice,
copies of the petition and TPO be served immediately on the respondent by the court
sheriffs. The TPOs are initially effective for thirty (30) days from service on the
respondent.||| Where no TPO is issued ex parte, the court will nonetheless order the
immediate issuance and service of the notice upon the respondent requiring him to file
an opposition to the petition within five (5) days from service. The date of the preliminary
conference and hearing on the merits shall likewise be indicated on the notice.
It is clear from the foregoing rules that the respondent of a petition for protection order
should be apprised of the charges imputed to him and afforded an opportunity to present
his side. Thus, the fear of petitioner of being "stripped of family, property, guns, money,
children, job, future employment and reputation, all in a matter of seconds, without an
inkling of what happened" is a mere product of an overactive imagination. The essence
of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any
evidence one may have in support of one's defense. "To be heard" does not only mean
verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity
to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial
of procedural due process.|||

Before a statute or its provisions duly challenged are voided, an unequivocal breach of,
or a clear conflict with the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative one, must
be demonstrated in such a manner as to leave no doubt in the mind of the
Court.||| Hence, the Constitutionality of R.A. 9262 should be sustained.

2.)

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.|||

We have held that "(t)he mere fact that an officer is required by law to inquire into the
existence of certain facts and to apply the law thereto in order to determine what his
official conduct shall be and the fact that these acts may affect private rights do not
constitute an exercise of judicial powers."|||

As clearly delimited by the aforequoted provision, the BPO issued by the Punong
Barangay or, in his unavailability, by any available Barangay Kagawad, merely orders
the perpetrator to desist from (a) causing physical harm to the woman or her child; and
(2) threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm. Such function of
the Punong Barangay is, thus, purely executive in nature, in pursuance of his duty under
the Local Government Code to "enforce all laws and ordinances," and to "maintain public
order in the barangay."|||

As already stated, assistance by barangay officials and other law enforcement agencies
is consistent with their duty to enforce the law and to maintain peace and order.|||